Hollywood's cultural revolution is making gay marriage inevitable

Thanks to TV's influence, within a generation gay marriage will be a social norm

On Saturday night, Google and YouTube will be live-streaming the premier of “8,” a play about the federal trial that overturned a California law banning gay marriage. It’s based on court transcripts and purports to tell the objective truth, although its politics are pretty brazen. The play is written by the talented screenwriter Dustin Lance Black (Milk, J Edgar) and stars anyone who is anyone who ever voted Democrat – George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Jane Lynch, Kevin Bacon, Jamie Lee Curtis and what feels like the entire cast of Glee. This is how Hollywood thinks you can change hearts and minds – by putting on a show! Tinseltown’s methods have never changed, but its politics certainly have. Can you imagine Bob Hope in 1956 throwing a telethon for transgendered rights? “Pick up your phones, folks. All we need is another $10,000 and we can make every bathroom in Burbank unisex…”

Supporters of gay marriage have wisely moved away from trying to win by the ballot box; the proposition has been rejected by citizens in 31 referendums. Now activists prefer to pursue their demands through the judiciary or local legislatures. California was an example of the former, overturning the result of a popular vote that took place in 2008. This year, assemblies in the states of Washington, Maryland and New Jersey have voted to legalise gay unions. New Jersey’s Governor, Chris Christie, has vetoed the bill in his state, and the other two will probably face ballot challenges. As one anti-gay marriage campaigner said to me, “Every time they pressure a legislature to pass it, we just get the people to revoke it.”

Despite consistent public opposition, there is a growing sense of inevitability about gay marriage. And Hollywood should take credit, for beneath the political radar it has affected a cultural revolution. Turn on the TV in America and you are bombarded with images of homosexuality as a social norm. Shows that showcase gay characters include American Horror Story, 30 Rock, Modern Family, Being Human, Game of Thrones (yes, really), Broadwalk Empire, Law and Order, Downton Abbey and Southland. A significant number of these (including Glee, Vampire Diaries, Teen Wolf) are aimed at teenagers. Even the comic Archie featured a homosexual union in its latest edition. The result is that while adults huff and puff about the ethics of gay marriage, a lot of youngsters are growing up acculturated to it. In 2011, Forbes Magazine showed that 70 percent of young people support gay marriage and concluded that, “Marriage inequality … will die out with the older generations.” One day, the referenda that have hitherto rejected gay marriages will endorse them enthusiastically.

There will be consequences. On the positive side, many people will find happiness and stability. On the negative side, the redefinition of marriage will push the culture in new, unintended directions. First, America will start to develop Europe’s more statist, more aggressive attitude towards combating discrimination. In New Jersey in 2008, a lesbian couple asked if they could conduct a union at a Methodist compound. They were told that they were allowed to marry anywhere except on the strictly religious parts of the site. Outraged, they sued. The couple won their battle and the Methodist owners lost their tax exempt status, costing them around $20,000. The couple’s case would only be strengthened if full marriage equality becomes law. True, most state’s gay marriage laws include religious exemptions. But all it takes is one court to conclude (logically) that if a church offers its services then it must do so without discrimination and the principle of freedom of religious conscience will be in jeopardy. If the government has already compelled Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts to place children with same-sex couples – which forced the agencies to close rather than comply – then you can guarantee that the same assertiveness will be displayed in the case of marriage.

Second, if marriage is redefined once, it will be done so again. Polygamy will be next. Already it has been getting a makeover courtesy of Hollywood – just take a look at the drama Big Love (also written by Dustin Lance Black). Polygamy rights groups have suddenly appeared and they are getting a fair hearing on TV and in print. In 2011, a law professor at George Washington University published a convincing op-ed in the New York Times in which he excoriated the hypocrisy of a society that elevates some consensual relationship but demonises others: “It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and “cohabits” with those partners, it is considered a crime.” The logic is irrefutable. If American law decides that marriage is about anything other than one man, one woman for the (at least hypothetical) purpose of procreation, then it becomes sheer bigotry to deny the right of any other combination of people to enjoy it. The same goes for marriage between a brother and sister. What authority has society to comment on the genetic suitability of two lovers? A society that rejects the foundational values of Judeo-Christian marriage certainly has no such right.

Gay marriage is too big – yet also too personal – an issue for one lowly historian to draw any conclusions on it. I know people on both sides of the debate and have no desire to offend either. But societies have to make choices. The idea that you can elevate one set of rights (sexual freedom) without diminishing another (religious freedom) is rarely true. In the case of gay marriage, the choice is difficult enough. However, it is disturbing to think that a debate with such enormous consequences is being shaped not by politicians, priests or parents – but by TV producers. Hollywood’s pen has become mightier than the ballot.